There have been many, many post-trial machinations following this summer's $1.05 billion patent infringement verdict in Apple v. Samsung. But the most provocative is surely Samsung's theory that the jury pool was tainted because the jury foreman did not disclose essential information about his past.

Samsung has argued the foreman, Velvin Hogan, withheld key facts—including that he was sued by Seagate Technology. That company is Hogan's former employer and it is now partly owned by Samsung. Hogan also didn't disclose that he filed for bankruptcy in connection with that litigation. In post-trial interviews, jurors said he described his own participation in the patent process during their deliberations. Hogan himself is a patent owner.

The company also insisted that Apple disclose what it knew about Hogan and when it knew it. "In order to have a full and fair opportunity to reply to Apple’s 'waiver' argument, Samsung is entitled to know when Apple first learned of Mr. Hogan’s undisclosed Seagate litigation, including whether it knew of Mr. Hogan’s misstatements to the Court prior to Samsung’s post-trial motion and nonetheless concealed that knowledge from the Court," wrote Samsung lawyers on October 30.

In papers filed late Friday, Apple finally disclosed to the court what it knew about Hogan: which is to say, almost nothing. After jury selection took place on July 30, Apple lawyers "became aware" that Hogan had filed for bankruptcy through a public records search, but they never even pulled the bankruptcy court file. And not a single member of Apple's in-house litigation team or outside counsel even knew about Hogan's lawsuit with Seagate until Samsung brought it up in post-trial briefs.

Overall, it's one more thing making Samsung's allegations about the jury foreman look pretty weak. The lawyers may have hoped that Apple knew something and didn't disclose it, but that now looks like a pipe dream seen through the distorted lens of a major trial loss.

The next major step in post-trial action is a hearing scheduled for December 6.

171 Reader Comments

I didn't realise Samsung's attempts had been labelled as increasingly weak.

Quote:

Samsung has argued the foreman, Velvin Hogan, withheld key facts—including that he was sued by Seagate Technology. That company is Hogan's former employer and it is now partly owned by Samsung. Hogan also didn't disclose that he filed for bankruptcy in connection with that litigation. In post-trial interviews, jurors said he described his own participation in the patent process during their deliberations. Hogan himself is a patent owner.

"Overall, it's one more thing making Samsung's allegations about the jury foreman look pretty weak. The lawyers may have hoped that Apple knew something and didn't disclose it, but that now looks like a pipe dream seen through the distorted lens of a major trial loss."

My brief non-lawyer summary: Apple had opposed Samsung's motion for a new trial by saying that Samsung was too late because they (samsung) should have investigated the Juror's responses earlier. Samsung then asked Apple when they (apple) knew. Apple had two possible responses: - We knew early on that the juror had lied but didn't reveal it to the court (which would be a case of Apple misleading the court), or - We didn't know either.

The second one appears to be the case. It makes it hard for Apple to claim that Samsung should have investigated earlier if they didn't.

"Overall, it's one more thing making Samsung's allegations about the jury foreman look pretty weak. The lawyers may have hoped that Apple knew something and didn't disclose it, but that now looks like a pipe dream seen through the distorted lens of a major trial loss."

Ars is unbiased. Groklaw is biased (they admit it), and their coverage of this trial has been embarrassingly bad.Don't look to Groklaw if you are actually interested in what is going on with this case.

"Overall, it's one more thing making Samsung's allegations about the jury foreman look pretty weak. The lawyers may have hoped that Apple knew something and didn't disclose it, but that now looks like a pipe dream seen through the distorted lens of a major trial loss."

Ars is unbiased. Groklaw is biased (they admit it), and their coverage of this trial has been embarrassingly bad.Don't look to Groklaw if you are actually interested in what is going on with this case.

That's funny, considering the previous forum postings have been more insightful than the article itself.

Again, Samsung's knowledge is orthogonal to the behavior of the juror, who disobeyed the judge and failed to disclose his biases and went on to taint the rest of the jury with his own interpretation of the law.

If Samsung had known of the juror's bias and still allowed him to serve, that shows that Samsung willingly took the chance that the bias would work out in Samsung's favor, which would make it less fair for Samsung to change its mind when a less desirable outcome occurs. It also means that Samsung would have hidden the juror's lie from the judge, which the judge might not look kindly on.

Wouldn't it be the other way around? Samsung claims to have a "substantial strategic relationship" with Seagate, so it's very likely, the Korean weapon manufacturers knew all along about Hogan's Seagate past, and used this knowledge to sabotage the trial. If they didn't lose (winning was almost impossible), no problem with Hogan. If they lost, accuse Hogan of being biased ("bias" in AE), and try to nullify the trial. And that's exactly what's going on.

The juror did not lie. He answered the questions asked. This has been covered before. The intent was to show that they could leave this behind, not a tell-all.

The only reason any of this is coming forward is because the blabbed stuff to the press. It is nearly impossible to overturn a jury decision unless their is some sort of deceit and malfeasance. Often the damages can be changed but the decision is usually final.

The question about whether Apple knew of anything before is relevant because they could have brought it up. But this is weak at best argument, but might show Apple as being deceitful.

"Overall, it's one more thing making Samsung's allegations about the jury foreman look pretty weak. The lawyers may have hoped that Apple knew something and didn't disclose it, but that now looks like a pipe dream seen through the distorted lens of a major trial loss."

I was generally thinking the same thing. When did a long shot become making Samsung's allegations weak. The facts about the juror , the patent holdings, and hi influence on the other jurors, are pretty solid. Let alone the whole crap about him being employed by Seagate at one point. Hell we won't even go into his quote about sending a message which violates what the judge ordered them to do.

The juror did not lie. He answered the questions asked. This has been covered before. The intent was to show that they could leave this behind, not a tell-all.

The juror was quite deceptive. He didn't make any untrue statements, but his way of answering the questions clearly involved leaving out some very relevant info that was obviously quite relevant.

PeterWimsey wrote:

Ars is unbiased. Groklaw is biased (they admit it), and their coverage of this trial has been embarrassingly bad.Don't look to Groklaw if you are actually interested in what is going on with this case.

Ars is not unbiased. No human is, and Ars is relatively open about the fact that their articles aren't strictly factual and actually have some opinions within them.

So, what does Apple's knowledge have to do with the misconduct of the juror?

If Apple had known they might have had an obligation to inform Samsung. If they failed to act, that might have given Samsung another legal argument to mount a challenge. Now their only avenue is to demonstrate definitively that the juror was biased (and not simply that he could have been biased and that Apple had a duty to inform Samsung of that potential bias).

It's a long shot. Judges are usually very reluctant to overturn jury verdicts. Arguably the Seagate lawsuit is meaningless since it was a long time ago (before Samsung even owned any part of Seagate) and Samsung would need to prove that the juror knew about the connection to Samsung or somehow let that case bias the current case. Samsung's strongest case is actually to attempt to invalidate the patents with the US Patent Office. The judge might tinker a bit with the ruling (adding or dropping a few devices here and there or recalculating some totals), but she is unlikely to throw out all of a jury's findings.

Asking because I don't know: is what Apple knew the point? Can a jury only be tainted (against A) if B knows about it? Or is it still tainted regardless?

It is the point when looking at Apple accusing Samsung of being too late and insinuating that Samsung should have known all along. I don't think this actually has any bearing on the foreman and the jury, just on what Apple can blame on Samsung wrt the foreman and the jury.

The juror did not lie. He answered the questions asked. This has been covered before. The intent was to show that they could leave this behind, not a tell-all.

The juror was quite deceptive. He didn't make any untrue statements, but his way of answering the questions clearly involved leaving out some very relevant info that was obviously quite relevant.

I disagree. I think he did as good a job as could be expected of any typical person who is not a lawyer.

Court cases are stressful, he wasn't give enough time to think carefully about his answers. He was asked if he had ever been in a court case before, he said yes, then he was asked to go into more detail and he started describing one of the court cases, then he was cut off and the questions moved on to something else. It's not his fault.

Apple is right, if you have a complaint about someone in the Jury you should have raised the issue before the court case started.

knbgnu wrote:

PeterWimsey wrote:

Ars is unbiased. Groklaw is biased (they admit it), and their coverage of this trial has been embarrassingly bad.Don't look to Groklaw if you are actually interested in what is going on with this case.

Ars is not unbiased. No human is, and Ars is relatively open about the fact that their articles aren't strictly factual and actually have some opinions within them.

It doesn't matter whether someone is biased or not, all that matters is whether the information is accurate.

Asking because I don't know: is what Apple knew the point? Can a jury only be tainted (against A) if B knows about it? Or is it still tainted regardless?

A juror can still be tainted, and the judge will decide that. However, if Apple had knowledge and failed to disclose it to Samsung, then it is possible that it wouldn't have mattered whether the juror was actually tainted, just whether he could have been and that Apple had a duty to disclose that information to Samsung. In other words, if Apple had known, then it might have given Samsung another avenue to get the case re-heard.

My brief non-lawyer summary: Apple had opposed Samsung's motion for a new trial by saying that Samsung was too late because they (samsung) should have investigated the Juror's responses earlier. Samsung then asked Apple when they (apple) knew. Apple had two possible responses: - We knew early on that the juror had lied but didn't reveal it to the court (which would be a case of Apple misleading the court), or - We didn't know either.

The second one appears to be the case. It makes it hard for Apple to claim that Samsung should have investigated earlier if they didn't.

Exactly this. My understanding is that the article has it completely backwards; this is exactly the result that Samsung expected to get, and it proves their point.

Samsung: "This juror didn't reveal his bias beforehand - otherwise we would have rejected him."Apple: "It's your fault. You should have done your homework. Any competent team of lawyers would have done so. Therefore your request for overturning the ruling should be denied."Samsung: "Well, did you know?"Apple: "Umm... no."Samsung: "Point made."

"Overall, it's one more thing making Samsung's allegations about the jury foreman look pretty weak. The lawyers may have hoped that Apple knew something and didn't disclose it, but that now looks like a pipe dream seen through the distorted lens of a major trial loss."

Groklaw - while usually a reasonable counterpoint to more Apple/MS friendly media - has been remarkably wild on this. Between constantly accusing the judge of bias with absolutely no reason other than they didn't like the trial outcome (which yeah who did, but...) and wild conspiracy theories about the jury foreman, it's really quite bizarre.

Think about what's being suggested here for a bit - that the foreman deliberately tried to skew a trial outcome against samsung because they now own less than 10% of another company he had a dispute with two decades ago. Oh, and don't forget that Apple knew about said revenge plot of course and it was all part of a master plan. Yeah it's not impossible, but really?

Now there's plenty of *other* things he did wrong that could be an issue for the verdict. His patent for example appears to be something similar to a PVR years after TIVO and it does look like he presented himself as an expert witness.

"Overall, it's one more thing making Samsung's allegations about the jury foreman look pretty weak. The lawyers may have hoped that Apple knew something and didn't disclose it, but that now looks like a pipe dream seen through the distorted lens of a major trial loss."

Ars is unbiased. Groklaw is biased (they admit it), and their coverage of this trial has been embarrassingly bad.Don't look to Groklaw if you are actually interested in what is going on with this case.

Hmm, I guess all those links to those pdfs of actual court documents to base their article on are just for show eh?

Meh, yes, I know they are biased. edit: and so is ars, which doesn't automatically mean anything wrong either.

Exactly this. My understanding is that the article has it completely backwards; this is exactly the result that Samsung expected to get, and it proves their point.

Samsung: "This juror didn't reveal his bias beforehand - otherwise we would have rejected him."Apple: "It's your fault. You should have done your homework. Any competent team of lawyers would have done so. Therefore your request for overturning the ruling should be denied."Samsung: "Well, did you know?"Apple: "Nope... But I'm not the one complaining here..."

T,FTFY

Whether the jury foreman was biased or not is one issue (and the main one).Whether Samsung should have done its homework or not is a separate issue.

Just because Apple didn't do its homework doesn't mean that Samsunggets to use it as an excuse. Your opponent's incompetence is no excuse for your own.

If Samsung managed to find all these information about the jury foreman AFTER the trial and without Apple's help, it can also be argued that they should also have been able to do the same BEFORE the trial and also without Apple's help.

What changed? These information about the jury foreman have been around for years. Why didn't they find out about it BEFORE the trial?

I guess that's the great thing about choosing a trial by jury. If it goes your way, everything is great. If it doesn't you can then scrutinize the lives of each and every juror to find one that was incompetent, biased, didn't follow instructions, failed to disclose something that nobody even asked about at the time and happened 20 years ago, etc. Considering how many jurors there are, you are bound to find something. Makes it a lot easier to appeal.

My brief non-lawyer summary: Apple had opposed Samsung's motion for a new trial by saying that Samsung was too late because they (samsung) should have investigated the Juror's responses earlier. Samsung then asked Apple when they (apple) knew. Apple had two possible responses: - We knew early on that the juror had lied but didn't reveal it to the court (which would be a case of Apple misleading the court), or - We didn't know either.

The second one appears to be the case. It makes it hard for Apple to claim that Samsung should have investigated earlier if they didn't.

Exactly this. My understanding is that the article has it completely backwards; this is exactly the result that Samsung expected to get, and it proves their point.

Samsung: "This juror didn't reveal his bias beforehand - otherwise we would have rejected him."Apple: "It's your fault. You should have done your homework. Any competent team of lawyers would have done so. Therefore your request for overturning the ruling should be denied."Samsung: "Well, did you know?"Apple: "Umm... no."Samsung: "Point made."

1. My reading was certainly not that Samsung "expected to get" this result; they seemed honestly concerned that Apple have actually known facts about Hogan and then not disclosed them. See the linked document I quoted, which shows their concern about whether Apple "knew of Mr. Hogan's misstatesments... and nonetheless concealed that knowledge from the Court."

2. It's true that Samsung could (and probably will) construe Apple's ignorance as meaning that they shouldn't be held responsible for the fact that they didn't know earlier. But the fact is, it wasn't Apple's job to object in this situation—it was Samsung's. And the thing they're objecting about just looks weak. They're complaining about one juror's very old relationship to a company that is partly owned by Samsung. That's just not that compelling. And post-trial motions like this are usually a longshot to begin with.

3. I'm calling this case as I see it, and writing opinion/analysis when I think I can. Accusations of pro-Apple bias here don't really add up. I would suggest any concerned reader look at my coverage of patent litigation as a whole and decide if I have a pro-Apple bias.

Think about what's being suggested here for a bit - that the foreman deliberately tried to skew a trial outcome against samsung because they now own less than 10% of another company he had a dispute with two decades ago. Oh, and don't forget that Apple knew about said revenge plot of course and it was all part of a master plan. Yeah it's not impossible, but really?

Well put. This is exactly why I called Samsung's post-trial argument weak.

"Overall, it's one more thing making Samsung's allegations about the jury foreman look pretty weak. The lawyers may have hoped that Apple knew something and didn't disclose it, but that now looks like a pipe dream seen through the distorted lens of a major trial loss."

Ars is unbiased. Groklaw is biased (they admit it), and their coverage of this trial has been embarrassingly bad.Don't look to Groklaw if you are actually interested in what is going on with this case.

Hmm, I guess all those links to those pdfs of actual court documents to base their article on are just for show eh?

Meh, yes, I know they are biased. edit: and so is ars, which doesn't automatically mean anything wrong either.

Did you read the pdf's throughout? Then his slant should be evident. Or you can take his word for accurate even though he seems off his rocker on this case. The pdf in short form - The question was posed if anyone had been in a court case....he raised his hand...he related his most recent case...they cut off and asked if anyone else did....others did...then asked them...then said something like "can you leave this all behind in giving a fair verdict" they all said yes.

See any deceit? See him hiding anything? Please read the links you so highly praise.

If Samsung managed to find all these information about the jury foreman AFTER the trial and without Apple's help, it can also be argued that they should also have been able to do the same BEFORE the trial and also without Apple's help.

What changed? These information about the jury foreman have been around for years. Why didn't they find out about it BEFORE the trial?

What changed was the jury foreman opened his mouth in post-trial interviews as Samsung showed in their court documents in reply to Apples' question about when they knew. Check this one out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9cnQcTC2JY .Pay particular attention to his AH HA moment and his explanation about the '460 patent.

"Overall, it's one more thing making Samsung's allegations about the jury foreman look pretty weak. The lawyers may have hoped that Apple knew something and didn't disclose it, but that now looks like a pipe dream seen through the distorted lens of a major trial loss."

Ars is unbiased. Groklaw is biased (they admit it), and their coverage of this trial has been embarrassingly bad.Don't look to Groklaw if you are actually interested in what is going on with this case.

Hmm, I guess all those links to those pdfs of actual court documents to base their article on are just for show eh?

Meh, yes, I know they are biased. edit: and so is ars, which doesn't automatically mean anything wrong either.

Did you read the pdf's throughout? Then his slant should be evident. Or you can take his word for accurate even though he seems off his rocker on this case. The pdf in short form - The question was posed if anyone had been in a court case....he raised his hand...he related his most recent case...they cut off and asked if anyone else did....others did...then asked them...then said something like "can you leave this all behind in giving a fair verdict" they all said yes.

See any deceit? See him hiding anything? Please read the links you so highly praise.

This particular article quoted states " But the truth is, no matter what they said, it helps Samsung, but this is the least harmful to Apple." That forms only a small part of this one article. The rest of the article goes on to the many other motions filed by apple, especially the part about them trying to nullify the design patent that they were awarded damages on.

If you want to say that the site is "embarrassing bad," you are going to have to do better than that.

Well put. This is exactly why I called Samsung's post-trial argument weak.

Actually what you said was "Samsung's allegations of juror misconduct look increasingly weak."

Which is different and to some, seems wrong.

You mean an allegation of juror misconduct was raised by Samsung _before_ the trial completed????

These two statements are a different wording of the same thing. "Samsung's post-trial argument" may include more than the "allegations of juror misconduct" but nevertheless these two statements are covering the same information.

I'm not going to claim there's any pro-Apple bias, as I feel there isn't any, but reading the article did seem to suggest Apple's new filling (which only indicated they knew little about the juror), was sort of the "deciding factor" behind labeling Samsung's allegations as "increasingly weak."

Not saying Apple is lying, either.

In fact, this is not even about Apple (not to me, and most, at least). I'm sure even Samsung, whether genuinely concerned about Apple's knowledge or not, would be more than happy in proving there was any misconduct at all. I'm more interested in finding out about this very thing than turning a blind eye due to the (high) improbability of the allegation (not implying this article or author has by the way). Especially if facts pointing to the contrary haven't been progressively presented since the allegations' inception to paint this all as "increasingly" weak. (If there are any, however, please point me in the right direction.)

Sure, the theory sounds quite far fetched, but I don't see how Apple not knowing about possible COI in the decision is definitive proof of anything, other than, what, that it turns out Apple really didn't know?

As others have said, nothing said here (including Apple's filing) really make Samsung's allegations weaker (than they already were), and in fact detract from the issue at hand: was there really any COI?

"Overall, it's one more thing making Samsung's allegations about the jury foreman look pretty weak. The lawyers may have hoped that Apple knew something and didn't disclose it, but that now looks like a pipe dream seen through the distorted lens of a major trial loss."

Ars is unbiased. Groklaw is biased (they admit it), and their coverage of this trial has been embarrassingly bad.Don't look to Groklaw if you are actually interested in what is going on with this case.

Hmm, I guess all those links to those pdfs of actual court documents to base their article on are just for show eh?

Meh, yes, I know they are biased. edit: and so is ars, which doesn't automatically mean anything wrong either.

Did you read the pdf's throughout? Then his slant should be evident. Or you can take his word for accurate even though he seems off his rocker on this case. The pdf in short form - The question was posed if anyone had been in a court case....he raised his hand...he related his most recent case...they cut off and asked if anyone else did....others did...then asked them...then said something like "can you leave this all behind in giving a fair verdict" they all said yes.

See any deceit? See him hiding anything? Please read the links you so highly praise.

I don't really think you can blame him for not revealing everything. While he should have known better, there is no way you can really lay the blame at his feet. His deceit really comes with the last question. They asked if he could leave all that behind to render a fair verdict. I would say he lied as he admits to using his previous patent knowledge to lead the jury. He clearly did not follow the rules of deliberation. Whether he did this on purpose or out of ignorance, I won't speculate.